Re: [rt-pmc] jetty packaging at eclipse-rt: status and questions

[Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2010-04-08, at 11:33 AM, Hugues Malphettes wrote:
> I updated the bug about the jetty features:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=307571

Thanks.  I added some comments there.

> Greg and the rest of the jetty team suggested to distribute at eclipse
> exclusively the equinox based packaging of jetty: we can avoid the
> confusion between EclipseRT and jetty if we simply call that
> distribution Jetty-Equinox-Distro; or Jetty-EclipseLink-Equinox or
> something.

Yup, naming is key.  It should also be set in the context of any other packages and naming. Again, this is extremely consumer focused. How do they see it? What would be appealing to them?

> At my work, the type of runtime we are looking for
> 1- Follows the CODA principles.
> 2- Is installed and maintained completely outside of any UI and if
> possible any tools at all.
> 3- Integrates nicely with the tooling for the developers and the
> Continuous Build.
> 
> It is almost a requirement that the architecture of the runtime does
> not look 100% biased towards eclipse-tooling; this addresses the IT
> administrators and teams who have a knee-jerk reaction with eclipse.
> 
> Is not it a very thin line between a starter-kit and an actual runtime?
> Making sure that the runtime can be used as an alternative entry point
> into the development cycle is very important to us:
> we can take any build and start debugging it.

I think we have a different definition of the word "runtime" here. If in the above you replace "runtime" with "package" then I agree.  That package is one possible configuration of the runtime bits available via EclipseRT. Note that I have never objected to the zip that you initially discussed. If the consumers like and understand it, great! I am however concerned with a) the positioning and b) deeper integration into the overall EclipseRT and CODA strategies. 

RE: starter kit and runtime, I have just used "starter kit" to "downplay" a bit the significance of the package. To be sure, enabling people to get running with the technology is important. But again, it is just one interesting starting point. It is not "the EclipseRT runtime" (I know you did not intend that).  Similarly, if it is there are other starter kits then they should be positioned in easy to understand ways. If you start talking about N different "runtimes" or "platforms", EclipseRT starts to look unwieldy. N starter kits however is much lighter weight.  Perhaps its just me but in our history at Eclipse it is clear that initial positioning of these things is vital in enabling future evolution of the community.

Jeff